RE: A question regarding IETF appointments
In addition, BCP 10 (RFC 3777) in no way limits the NomCom from selecting sitting ISOC Board members to be on the IAB or IESG. I think it would be best to avoid having ADs on the BoT, as they are overworked already, and (should be) focused on producing the protocols we need now. However, there is substantial overlap between the functions of IAB and BoT members. Both need to be concerned with maintenance and growth of the Internet, evolution of its basic architecture, and cooperation with other SDOs. Having IAB members on the ISOC BoT furthermore ensures someone is looking after the IETF's interests (e.g. standardization and openess of protocols). So I recommend restricting IESG members but encouraging the appointment of IAB members. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A question regarding IETF appointments
There is a new relationship between ISOC and the IETF for administrative support as defined by BCP 101 (RFC 4071). Given these changes in our ties to ISOC, the IAB has been discussing (without coming to any conclusion on the matter) whether it is any longer appropriate for someone to simultaneously hold both an IAB/IESG position and a seat on the ISOC BoT. We think the community should discuss this. I think that there can certainly be times when the role of an I* member conflicts with the role of an ISOC BoT member. But it depends a lot on the particular issue at hand, and there are certainly ways of dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. E.g., recusal, being very clear about which hat one is speaking from when making comments, etc. And in the vast majority issues, it's unclear to me that there are so many inherent conflict of interest situation that one is lead to the conclusion that dual appointments should never happen. So, I don't think that the potential for conflicts should be cause for an absolute prohibition on such dual appointments. In the case of the IAB making an ISOC BoT selection/recommendation, I would hope that (should they) seriously consider appointing someone who is already an I* member, they would take into consideration such factors as doing too much already, would they be able to deal with conflicts in an appropriate fashion, etc. Likewise, I would hope/expect that the nomcom would do the same when considering a nomination for an I* position for a sitting ISOC BoT member. But at the end of the day, if the IAB (nomcom) concludes that the best person for the job is indeed a current I* (ISOC BoT) member, I think we'd be better served by allowing them to exercise good judgement (i.e, do what they are supposed to do). Thomas ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A question regarding IETF appointments
Leslie allegedly wrote: Annually, the IAB makes an appointment to one of three seats on the Internet Society Board of Trustees (ISOC BoT). BCP 77 (RFC 3677), which describes the selection process, allows IESG and IAB members to be selected for the ISOC Board, though no more than two of the three could be IESG or IAB members. In addition, BCP 10 (RFC 3777) in no way limits the NomCom from selecting sitting ISOC Board members to be on the IAB or IESG. There is a new relationship between ISOC and the IETF for administrative support as defined by BCP 101 (RFC 4071). Given these changes in our ties to ISOC, the IAB has been discussing (without coming to any conclusion on the matter) whether it is any longer appropriate for someone to simultaneously hold both an IAB/IESG position and a seat on the ISOC BoT. We think the community should discuss this. There are conflicts of interest everywhere. You can't avoid them, you can only decide where to set your tolerance level. I do not want the IETF to become completely driven by procedure manuals, with rules for everything that might possibly happen someday. I say continue allowing IAB/IESG to serve on the ISOC board, and if a problem ever arises we can make new rules then. swb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
A question regarding IETF appointments
Annually, the IAB makes an appointment to one of three seats on the Internet Society Board of Trustees (ISOC BoT). BCP 77 (RFC 3677), which describes the selection process, allows IESG and IAB members to be selected for the ISOC Board, though no more than two of the three could be IESG or IAB members. In addition, BCP 10 (RFC 3777) in no way limits the NomCom from selecting sitting ISOC Board members to be on the IAB or IESG. There is a new relationship between ISOC and the IETF for administrative support as defined by BCP 101 (RFC 4071). Given these changes in our ties to ISOC, the IAB has been discussing (without coming to any conclusion on the matter) whether it is any longer appropriate for someone to simultaneously hold both an IAB/IESG position and a seat on the ISOC BoT. We think the community should discuss this. Note that if such a restriction is necessary, both BCP 77 and BCP 10 would need to be updated to reflect that. You are alway welcome to send comments privately to the IAB, but for the purposes of community *discussion*, please use this list (ietf@ietf.org). Leslie, for the IAB. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
